(September 4, 2014 at 8:24 pm)Natachan Wrote: I always thought it was because Cain's line was a dead end. He isn't listed in the genealogy because his line dies out.

Since Noah is not of his line, I would assume so. Noah and his sons are after all supposed to be the sole survivors of the flood.

Though that's a little odd since Jabal of Cain's line is supposed to be the ancestor of "those who live in tents and amidst herds" and Jubal his brother the ancestor of "all who play the lyre and pipe" (Genesis 4:20) and clearly people who did both were around after the flood. The Hebrews did both.

Hmmm yet another Biblical inconsistency. Fancy that.

---

By the way, speaking of those genealogies Methusael Cain's great-great-grandson and Seth's great many many times great grandson Methuselah are apparently both the father of Lamech. They are both descendants of Enoch too. Either that or there were two Lamechs and two Enochs.

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read your own dang book. Abel doesn't have any decedents but Adam's son Seth does.

Typo, Obviously I meant Adam

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Genesis 6
6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Adam was a son of God, making his children also sons of God. The nature of Cain could not have come from Adam.

You need to read that whole section. It was not Adam and his sons who are referred to as the sons of god, it's the Nephilim i.e. angels.

"When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."
Genesis 6:1-4

The sons of god referred to were divine beings who took up with human woman.

Wrong, if they were angels, that would mean that they have the ability to create (since angels are spirit beings, they would have had to create themselves bodies capable of procreation), the only creator is God. And also doesn't the Bible state that he made Jesus, God's only begotten son, "a little lower than the angels"? If Christ, who being the beginning of the creation of God and his only begotten son, was lower than the angels by being human, this means angels cannot be "sons of God" because they were never created in his image.

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Luke 3:38
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The descendants of Adam were long lived and once the two bloodlines began to mix, it shortened their life expectancy.

You're nuts. Adam was the son of God in that god created him. There's nothing about that that negates the clear statement in Genesis 4 that Cain was the son of Adam. Nor is there any suggestion that the mixing of blood was the reason for the decrease in lifespan. God simply declared that he would reduce man's lifespan.

You have no scripture that states that Cain is Adam's son, what you have is Adam having carnal knowledge of his wife twice and Eve bearing three children, which would make Cain and able twins, and you can find nowhere in the Bible where it states that they were twins.

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also, did not God say to eve that he would put enmity between her seed and the serpents seed? So the serpent clearly had a "seed". If you notice, knowledge came through the line of Cain, they were the inventors and scientists.

What Genesis 3:15 actually says is:

"I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve],
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Notice the serpent's off-spring and Eve's are separate.

Actually this is what it says. This is God speaking to the serpent.
Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;

(September 4, 2014 at 3:27 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: It is a recurring theme throught the Bible that only blood shed can pay for sin and Jesus' death is the ultimate sacrafice the Bible is leading up to. Jesus' death paid for are sin and that is why christians do not sacrafice animals, we just look to the cross. "For God so loved the world he gave his one and only Son that who so ever believes in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life" John 3 16

Ugh. Not this story, again.

(September 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: When my son was seven, I caught him writing the word "fuck" in chalk on the sidewalk in front of our apartment. This was obviously bad behavior. Now, I could have thrown him into the oven set at 475F for eternity -- or until my gas bill got too high -- but I instead chose to have him scrub the sidewalk, restricted him to his room for three hours, and made him apologize to our neighbors in the apartment complex.

What is the lesson you draw from this parable?

Did you have to bleed him or sacrifice his pets in order to forgive him? Gotta have blood on your hands if you're gonna truly love someone and forgive them!

(September 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Um? Are we reading the same Bible? God does not take the life any animal at the moment of the fall, though he did decree that Adam and Eve's life would be hard and that they would be mortal and die. He also curses the serpent and in a just-so sort of passage takes away it's legs. --- Or are you extrapolating from "And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21

Extrapolate, uh no. To conclude based on the evidence provided by the net result resulting A&E's new leather digs, yes.

The difference?
To extrapolate more or less means to predict an unknown based on known variables.
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future>
b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>


To conclude
1
obsolete : to shut up : enclose
2
: to bring to an end especially in a particular way or with a particular action <conclude a meeting with a prayer>
3
a : to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning : infer on the basis of evidence <concluded that her argument was sound>
b : to make a decision about : decide <concluded he would wait a little longer>
c : to come to an agreement on : effect <conclude a sale>

Both definitions were taken from the merrium Webster.

If you do not see the difference in the two, to conclude is to logically come to an end by reasoning. To extrapolate is to make a projection about an unknown based on a know variable.

In this instance reason dictates that if God took the skin of an animal, that animal was sacrificed or died to literally cover the result Of the sin A&E took part in.

To extrapolate is to back into a conclusion starting at the cross and the various texts explaining the importance of a blood sacrifice, and working out way back through the various scripture supporting the stated reasons of God for the blood sacrifice and ending with gen 3:21, by assigning the same meaning that the final sacrifice of Christ, onto the first sacrifice of the animals that gave their skins to cover the sins of the Adam and Eve.

Quote:According to the Bible, God made us. How much more like children is necessary?

Ummm like, what bible are you reading?
Most Christian bibles say as much as 'God created man.' That man's name was Adam.
From Adam's rib, produced Eve. After that He stopped. Everyone else is a reproduction of Adam and Eve.

So again, not born God's Children. We are all son's and daughters of Adam and Eve.
We are not considered God's Children till we elect to be. (Through salvation)

Quote:And, what the heck do you mean about ebolia patients? If your meaning is that God does not tell people how the world works--I agree, the God of the Bible certainly doesn't do that. But he does tell them how to worship him repeatedly, with emphasis, and occasionally set in stone.

umm, no. I don't mean that at all.
What do we do when someone contract this disease?
We quarantine them, we seperate them from the healthy. (The fall of man the exile from the garden.) we are the diseased. Heaven/God is the healthy population. Now how does one get to leave the quarantine area? They are cured and they go through a sterilization/decontamination process. Christ died on the cross, was the cure. We simply have to accept it and go though the decontamination process/accept Christ and live a life dedicated to God.

Quote:No I didn't see Noah. The reviews are not promising. ---- So Cain got a pass so that he could father those other nasty people who didn't get to go in the ark? Seems an odd proceeding.

cain got a pass because he had a role to play in the establishment and history of man.

Quote:"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8

Amen, God is love. But again where does it say God is all loving? I can be loving and still not love everyone... The same would seem to be true with God as well because The bible records that there were those in whom God hated. It's a short list, but this would contradict the idea that God must love everyone.

Quote: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Amen to that too.. But in John 3:16 I see a condition to God's boundless love. Meaning His Love is not for everyone, otherwise everyone would get eternal life. Rather His offer of love/eternal life is only offered to those in whom believe.

Would God destroy those in whom He love in Hell?

Quote:" For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt." Deuteronomy 10:17-19 "But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness." Psalm 86:15

Who wrote the psalms?
Answer: God's chosen people. Therefore the subject of the love expressed here was written to the Jew. Their could be an argument made to include the Christian, but certainly not the unbeliever/those who hate God.. Or do I need to google the verse that describes blessing found in smashing Babylonian babies against rocks verse found in the same book of psalms?

In truth an Omni benevolent God is a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, a creation not supported by scripture.
If you want to talk the Roman Catholic version of God know you have valid points. However if your talking the God of the bible your arguement falls short of His basic comprehension.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Read your own dang book. Abel doesn't have any decedents but Adam's son Seth does.

Typo, Obviously I meant Adam

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You need to read that whole section. It was not Adam and his sons who are referred to as the sons of god, it's the Nephilim i.e. angels.

"When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."
Genesis 6:1-4

The sons of god referred to were divine beings who took up with human woman.

Wrong, if they were angels, that would mean that they have the ability to create (since angels are spirit beings, they would have had to create themselves bodies capable of procreation), the only creator is God. And also doesn't the Bible state that he made Jesus, God's only begotten son, "a little lower than the angels"? If Christ, who being the beginning of the creation of God and his only begotten son, was lower than the angels by being human, this means angels cannot be "sons of God" because they were never created in his image.

It's talking about carnal begetting between human daughters and divine beings. It isn't even ambiguous. Sorry if it doesn't meet your definition of angels but that is what is says.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You're nuts. Adam was the son of God in that god created him. There's nothing about that that negates the clear statement in Genesis 4 that Cain was the son of Adam. Nor is there any suggestion that the mixing of blood was the reason for the decrease in lifespan. God simply declared that he would reduce man's lifespan.

You have no scripture that states that Cain is Adam's son, what you have is Adam having carnal knowledge of his wife twice and Eve bearing three children, which would make Cain and able twins, and you can find nowhere in the Bible where it states that they were twins.

Actually I do: "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced[a] a man with the help of the Lord.” 2 Next she bore his brother Abel. " Genesis 4:1-2. Apparently god helped with Cain, but not necessarily Abel. It's much clearer that Cain is Adam's son than it is that Abel is. Though obviously they both were.

Quote:

(September 4, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Jenny A Wrote: What Genesis 3:15 actually says is:

"I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve],
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Notice the serpent's off-spring and Eve's are separate.

Actually this is what it says. This is God speaking to the serpent.
Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;

Nope that's the cruddy King James which is a lousy translation. I've quoted the NRVS. But they mean the same thing. Seed is offspring. I agree god is talking to the serpent. But god says Eve's descendants and the serpent's will be enemies because they aren't they same decedents. If your interpretation were right Cain would be the child of both Eve and the Serpent.

---

(September 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Um? Are we reading the same Bible? God does not take the life any animal at the moment of the fall, though he did decree that Adam and Eve's life would be hard and that they would be mortal and die. He also curses the serpent and in a just-so sort of passage takes away it's legs. --- Or are you extrapolating from "And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21

Extrapolate, uh no. To conclude based on the evidence provided by the net result resulting A&E's new leather digs, yes.

The difference?
To extrapolate more or less means to predict an unknown based on known variables.
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future>
b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>


To conclude
1
obsolete : to shut up : enclose
2
: to bring to an end especially in a particular way or with a particular action <conclude a meeting with a prayer>
3
a : to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning : infer on the basis of evidence <concluded that her argument was sound>
b : to make a decision about : decide <concluded he would wait a little longer>
c : to come to an agreement on : effect <conclude a sale>

Both definitions were taken from the merrium Webster.

If you do not see the difference in the two, to conclude is to logically come to an end by reasoning. To extrapolate is to make a projection about an unknown based on a know variable.

In this instance reason dictates that if God took the skin of an animal, that animal was sacrificed or died to literally cover the result Of the sin A&E took part in.

To extrapolate is to back into a conclusion starting at the cross and the various texts explaining the importance of a blood sacrifice, and working out way back through the various scripture supporting the stated reasons of God for the blood sacrifice and ending with gen 3:21, by assigning the same meaning that the final sacrifice of Christ, onto the first sacrifice of the animals that gave their skins to cover the sins of the Adam and Eve.

Quote:According to the Bible, God made us. How much more like children is necessary?

Ummm like, what bible are you reading?
Most Christian bibles say as much as 'God created man.' That man's name was Adam.
From Adam's rib, produced Eve. After that He stopped. Everyone else is a reproduction of Adam and Eve.

So again, not born God's Children. We are all son's and daughters of Adam and Eve.
We are not considered God's Children till we elect to be. (Through salvation)

Perhaps you ought to discuss this with Huggy who is convinced Adam is the son of god. Apparently so is Luke.

And yes it is a leap to suggest the new leather clothes were a sacrifice. The animals could have died naturally. The could have just been used with no sacrifice intended, like my boots for example. If a sacrifice were intended the author of Genesis would have said so. Not all use of an animal is a religious sacrifice.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:And, what the heck do you mean about ebolia patients? If your meaning is that God does not tell people how the world works--I agree, the God of the Bible certainly doesn't do that. But he does tell them how to worship him repeatedly, with emphasis, and occasionally set in stone.

umm, no. I don't mean that at all.
What do we do when someone contract this disease?
We quarantine them, we seperate them from the healthy. (The fall of man the exile from the garden.) we are the diseased. Heaven/God is the healthy population. Now how does one get to leave the quarantine area? They are cured and they go through a sterilization/decontamination process. Christ died on the cross, was the cure. We simply have to accept it and go though the decontamination process/accept Christ and live a life dedicated to God.

Ah, but it's a bad analogy. Separation prevents the contraction of the disease by others. Cures are rather different. And you don't really answer the question of why Cain gets a pass on murder or why his offering is rejected.

---

If you want to argue god is not all loving, more power to you, but you are at odds with many other Christians. You-all can't agree about this god of yours. Hence the Adam is or isn't the son of god problem.

(September 4, 2014 at 11:04 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Perhaps you ought to discuss this with Huggy who is convinced Adam is the son of god. Apparently so is Luke.

in any discussion one must define the parameters in which source material can be used to qualify a given subject. That is why I have elected the term "the God of the bible." In that phrase defines the singular source material that can be used to identify and or describe anything related to God. If you both agree on this point then simple deconstruct said arguement based on what the bible says. Seperate the religious beliefs from the actual documented scripture. Keep the scripture discard the rest no matter how popular it is. In the end you will have an accurate picture of the God of the bible.

Quote:And yes it is a leap to suggest the new leather clothes were a sacrifice. The animals could have died naturally. The could have just been used with no sacrifice intended, like my boots for example. If a sacrifice were intended the author of Genesis would have said so. Not all use of an animal is a religious sacrifice.

And who would be God sacrificing to?

Quote:Ah, but it's a bad analogy.

not true. A bad analogy does not include any parallels. If one parallel exists the analogy is valid.

Quote:Separation prevents the contraction of the disease by others.

how do you know this is not the case?

Quote: Cures are rather different.

how so?

Quote: And you don't really answer the question of why Cain gets a pass on murder or why his offering is rejected.

Actually I did in my initial answer of the op. You just don't like them. Because your theology is not biblically based, and I have not addressed your Catholicism based theology in a manner your expecting.

Again by identifying my efforts as being descriptive of the God of the bible, I have limited the conversation to the bible as the only source material valid for discussing the parameters of God or these events.

Just I cased you missed it. Cain was allowed to live because his descendants were needed for the coming events described in time of Noah. His people were to bring sin and destruction to this world like it has never or since seen.

His offer was rejected because God demonstrated a need for a blood sacrifice at the fall of man. (You can't get blood from a turnip.) Abel offered the blood required and Cain did his own thing. Abel followed God's example, while Cain didn't bother to go out of his way. He offer what he had avaiable to him.


---

Quote:If you want to argue god is not all loving, more power to you, but you are at odds with many other Christians. You-all can't agree about this god of yours. Hence the Adam is or isn't the son of god problem.

So?

I am not at odds with the bible. Therefore I am not at odds with the God said bible describes.

Because once again the doctrine of an Omni max God is a catholic construct, not a biblical one. With an god who must yield to the definitions and restrictions Omni benevolence places on said deity, The God of the bible is found in contradiction in many parts of scripture...

However if one simply assigns the qualities of God that God himself applies and tells us to apply all the contradictions go away, even if we loose the idea of Omni benevolent deity.

God tells us that He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He calls Him self 'I am' and the God of Abraham. As such being an alpha and omega He quit literally can be anything he wants to be when and if he wants to be it. Can a Omni max God create a rock so big he can't lift it? If answered yes or no then he is in a paradox. Can an alpha and omega do the same? Only if He wanted to. Can an Omni max send people to hell? No, but the bible says yes.. Can an alpha and omega, yes.

So again if we are talking about the God of the bible and not some medieval R/C construct, then it does not matter what the majority of Christianity believes. We don't all have to be right in our beliefs, to have our beliefs to be right.[/quote]

(September 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If you notice, knowledge came through the line of Cain, they were the inventors and scientists.

Well then, at least we now have motivation for the bizarre assertion that Cain wasn't the son of Adam; hatred for human achievement. What else can explain a passion for contriving a mechanism by which science, technology, and music are to be the responsibility of the Devil? It's one thing to be gullible enough to accept the Bible as the inerrant and infallible word of God; it's an altogether special brand of lunacy that allows someone to wield the Bible as some conspiratorial weapon of mass delusion. I suppose the author of Matthew was the first of this kind.

Playing hopscotch through the Bible stringing together unrelated passages in an attempt to demonstrate some otherwise untold story or manufacture a prognostication is not Biblical scholarship; it's meaningless drivel. It's almost as if people that do this, mostly evangelicals, have concluded that the Bible wasn't sufficient. If I were a literalist believer, I think I would reconsider effectively telling God that his literary claim to fame was an inadequate pile of shit.

(September 5, 2014 at 12:22 am)Drich Wrote: Abel followed God's example, while Cain didn't bother to go out of his way. He offer what he had avaiable to him.

How convenient for Abel, that he was the shepherd (chuckles). They -both- offered what they had available. It's not "going out of your way" for a shepherd to give sheep, and it's not "going out of your way" for a farmer to give turnips. Why not set both brothers up as shepherds?

The authors simply believed that what was available to Abel was desired by god. Again, the authors were shepherds, so this doesn't come as a surprise. The "events of the time of Noah", btw Drich - utter garbage. If you want to say that Cain got a pass so he could contribute (or found) some scenario or peoples or what have you- leading to an event...it probably ought to be an actual event, don't you think? Conceiving of the narrative in such a way rules out any use beyond literary device, as the "events described" are literary - not factual. Probably not your intention, but there it is.

(September 4, 2014 at 10:38 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(September 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: When my son was seven, I caught him writing the word "fuck" in chalk on the sidewalk in front of our apartment. This was obviously bad behavior. Now, I could have thrown him into the oven set at 475F for eternity -- or until my gas bill got too high -- but I instead chose to have him scrub the sidewalk, restricted him to his room for three hours, and made him apologize to our neighbors in the apartment complex.

What is the lesson you draw from this parable?

Did you have to bleed him or sacrifice his pets in order to forgive him? Gotta have blood on your hands if you're gonna truly love someone and forgive them!

I ended up settling on nailing the neighbor's child to a cross. That seemed fair, to me.

---

(September 5, 2014 at 12:22 am)Drich Wrote: not true. A bad analogy does not include any parallels. If one parallel exists the analogy is valid.

Here's the definition of a flawed analogy:

Quote: False Analogy

Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)

Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.

References:
Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84
26 May 1995

http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

Note that the definition explicitly states that flawed analogies can still share some properties.

You're new to this reasoning stuff, aren't you?